<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2023 (12) TMI 1226 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447542</link>
    <description>ITAT Delhi allowed assessee&#039;s appeal regarding derivative trading losses on NSE platform. The tribunal found CIT(A) erroneously disallowed losses by failing to consider open positions from previous year that matured during assessment year and carried-forward positions. The derivative losses were supported by scrip-wise statements and registered broker confirmations. ITAT held the accounting treatment of recognizing profits/losses in open contracts aligned with standard practices, and CIT(A)&#039;s approach would create absurd double-counting results. Tribunal directed AO to allow derivative losses as business losses and deleted penalty under Section 271(1)(c), finding no culpability given proper documentary evidence and SEBI broker confirmations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Dec 2023 07:58:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=738035" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (12) TMI 1226 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447542</link>
      <description>ITAT Delhi allowed assessee&#039;s appeal regarding derivative trading losses on NSE platform. The tribunal found CIT(A) erroneously disallowed losses by failing to consider open positions from previous year that matured during assessment year and carried-forward positions. The derivative losses were supported by scrip-wise statements and registered broker confirmations. ITAT held the accounting treatment of recognizing profits/losses in open contracts aligned with standard practices, and CIT(A)&#039;s approach would create absurd double-counting results. Tribunal directed AO to allow derivative losses as business losses and deleted penalty under Section 271(1)(c), finding no culpability given proper documentary evidence and SEBI broker confirmations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447542</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>